The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

Saw an interesting article earlier. Apparently University of Texas law students have a very hard time passing the bar. Like less than 60% of them manage it. The reason given is cronyism. Political leaders, both democrat and republican, apparently put a lot of time into getting their buddies kids into the law school there. Whether they can cut it or not. Any grads here? I thought this was supposed to be one of the better law schools in the country.

I'd have to read the article, but I suspect that you're being sold a bill of goods. No Top 20 law school would have that rating with a 60% bar passage rate. UT's reported bar passage rate is in line with it's peers (around 94%).

http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

First-time bar exam pass rates for February:

1. Texas Tech University, 92 percent

2. Baylor University, 89 percent

3. Texas A&M University, 88 percent

4. University of Houston, 84 percent

5. South Texas College of Law, 84 percent

6. Southern Methodist University, 72 percent

7. St. Mary's University, 67 percent

8. Texas Southern University, 67 percent

9. University of Texas at Austin, 59 percent

Source: Texas Board of Law Examiners

I assume the Texas Board is a good source.

 

[NCCommish]

February bar passage rates generally lag behind for two reasons. It's disproportionately filled with people who failed in July and it's disproportionately filled with people who haven't spent the last two months doing nothing but studying for the bar (or in my case, playing disc golf and occasionally studying for the bar).

That certainly makes sense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I just found out that the witness opposing counsel has based his entire case on in an injury suit has been convicted of dozens of counts of a crime that has "deception" as an element.

Really looking forward to this.

So strategery - do you let him know now along with a settlement demand or do you blindside him at the deposition? I can see arguments for both.

Oh, the deposition already happened. His witness claimed he hasn't been convicted of any crimes in the last ten years.

Then I took his birthday and searched it.

The title of the statute that defines the crime has the word "deception" in it.

Nice. That's like physical pleasure type of revelation right there. I envy your feeling at the moment. I'm trying to help a client not pay me a $10,000 retainer to sue someone for what is probably going to end up being about $12,000 in damages but the guy is livid he said he is going to do it anyway. I take no joy in taking that money and buying nice things. Well, maybe a little, but I try to talk them out of it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Saw an interesting article earlier. Apparently University of Texas law students have a very hard time passing the bar. Like less than 60% of them manage it. The reason given is cronyism. Political leaders, both democrat and republican, apparently put a lot of time into getting their buddies kids into the law school there. Whether they can cut it or not. Any grads here? I thought this was supposed to be one of the better law schools in the country.

I'd have to read the article, but I suspect that you're being sold a bill of goods. No Top 20 law school would have that rating with a 60% bar passage rate. UT's reported bar passage rate is in line with it's peers (around 94%).

http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

First-time bar exam pass rates for February:

1. Texas Tech University, 92 percent

2. Baylor University, 89 percent

3. Texas A&M University, 88 percent

4. University of Houston, 84 percent

5. South Texas College of Law, 84 percent

6. Southern Methodist University, 72 percent

7. St. Mary's University, 67 percent

8. Texas Southern University, 67 percent

9. University of Texas at Austin, 59 percent

Source: Texas Board of Law Examiners

I assume the Texas Board is a good source.

Only 31 UT students took the bar in February. Considering that UT had a 94% pass rate among 275 students in July. It essentially brought the presumptive "Class of 2013" average down to 91%. Which is a bit low for UT, but probably just a statistical fluke.

 

[NCCommish]

Saw an interesting article earlier. Apparently University of Texas law students have a very hard time passing the bar. Like less than 60% of them manage it. The reason given is cronyism. Political leaders, both democrat and republican, apparently put a lot of time into getting their buddies kids into the law school there. Whether they can cut it or not. Any grads here? I thought this was supposed to be one of the better law schools in the country.

I'd have to read the article, but I suspect that you're being sold a bill of goods. No Top 20 law school would have that rating with a 60% bar passage rate. UT's reported bar passage rate is in line with it's peers (around 94%).

http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

First-time bar exam pass rates for February:

1. Texas Tech University, 92 percent

2. Baylor University, 89 percent

3. Texas A&M University, 88 percent

4. University of Houston, 84 percent

5. South Texas College of Law, 84 percent

6. Southern Methodist University, 72 percent

7. St. Mary's University, 67 percent

8. Texas Southern University, 67 percent

9. University of Texas at Austin, 59 percent

Source: Texas Board of Law Examiners

I assume the Texas Board is a good source.

Only 31 UT students took the bar in February. Considering that UT had a 94% pass rate among 275 students in July. It essentially brought the presumptive "Class of 2013" average down to 91%. Which is a bit low for UT, but probably just a statistical fluke.

OK.

 

[Henry Ford]

I just found out that the witness opposing counsel has based his entire case on in an injury suit has been convicted of dozens of counts of a crime that has "deception" as an element.

Really looking forward to this.

So strategery - do you let him know now along with a settlement demand or do you blindside him at the deposition? I can see arguments for both.

Oh, the deposition already happened. His witness claimed he hasn't been convicted of any crimes in the last ten years.Then I took his birthday and searched it.

The title of the statute that defines the crime has the word "deception" in it.

Nice. That's like physical pleasure type of revelation right there. I envy your feeling at the moment. I'm trying to help a client not pay me a $10,000 retainer to sue someone for what is probably going to end up being about $12,000 in damages but the guy is livid he said he is going to do it anyway. I take no joy in taking that money and buying nice things. Well, maybe a little, but I try to talk them out of it.

I definitely got physically aroused when I saw the conviction record.

 

[NCCommish]

I just found out that the witness opposing counsel has based his entire case on in an injury suit has been convicted of dozens of counts of a crime that has "deception" as an element.

Really looking forward to this.

So strategery - do you let him know now along with a settlement demand or do you blindside him at the deposition? I can see arguments for both.

Oh, the deposition already happened. His witness claimed he hasn't been convicted of any crimes in the last ten years.Then I took his birthday and searched it.

The title of the statute that defines the crime has the word "deception" in it.

Nice. That's like physical pleasure type of revelation right there. I envy your feeling at the moment. I'm trying to help a client not pay me a $10,000 retainer to sue someone for what is probably going to end up being about $12,000 in damages but the guy is livid he said he is going to do it anyway. I take no joy in taking that money and buying nice things. Well, maybe a little, but I try to talk them out of it.

I definitely got physically aroused when I saw the conviction record.

You may be just a bit too into it.

 

[Henry Ford]

You may be just a bit too into it.

You have no idea how much the other party has screwed around with this client's life.

 

[NCCommish]

You may be just a bit too into it.

You have no idea how much the other party has screwed around with this client's life.

I was just kidding. I can easily see when someone has been a real doosh some serious excitement over helping karma out a bit.

 

[Zow]

February bar passage rates generally lag behind for two reasons. It's disproportionately filled with people who failed in July and it's disproportionately filled with people who haven't spent the last two months doing nothing but studying for the bar (or in my case, playing disc golf and occasionally studying for the bar).

Yep.

Also lotta people taking the February bar took the bar in their "needed" state in July, and then decided to take the bar in their "ideal" state in February - and often then don't put the same effort into it.

 

[Zow]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

 

[Gawain]

Saw an interesting article earlier. Apparently University of Texas law students have a very hard time passing the bar. Like less than 60% of them manage it. The reason given is cronyism. Political leaders, both democrat and republican, apparently put a lot of time into getting their buddies kids into the law school there. Whether they can cut it or not. Any grads here? I thought this was supposed to be one of the better law schools in the country.

I'd have to read the article, but I suspect that you're being sold a bill of goods. No Top 20 law school would have that rating with a 60% bar passage rate. UT's reported bar passage rate is in line with it's peers (around 94%).

http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

First-time bar exam pass rates for February:

1. Texas Tech University, 92 percent

2. Baylor University, 89 percent

3. Texas A&M University, 88 percent

4. University of Houston, 84 percent

5. South Texas College of Law, 84 percent

6. Southern Methodist University, 72 percent

7. St. Mary's University, 67 percent

8. Texas Southern University, 67 percent

9. University of Texas at Austin, 59 percent

Source: Texas Board of Law Examiners

I assume the Texas Board is a good source.

Only 31 UT students took the bar in February. Considering that UT had a 94% pass rate among 275 students in July. It essentially brought the presumptive "Class of 2013" average down to 91%. Which is a bit low for UT, but probably just a statistical fluke.

OK.

It's also probably the worst of the worst students. First time in February means that you either needed an extra semester to finish cause you were a goof off, or you couldn't find anyone to pay for Barbri. Without a comparison to all July to Feb rates, this reads as some Emory grad with an axe to grind.

 

[Henry Ford]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

These

 

[Henry Ford]

You should also spend a day preparing your client. You need to arm and armor him/her before this starts. I recommend this book to everyone, but especially to lawyers who have never had a plaintiff client before:

Reptile

There's a good chapter on preparing your client for deposition.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A lot of good tips, but I'd never give a deponent 130 rules (even though the document acknowledges that its overkill). It's a decent primer as a basis for the beginning of prep discussion.

 

[Henry Ford]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

 

[Henry Ford]

A lot of good tips, but I'd never give a deponent 130 rules (even though the document acknowledges that its overkill). It's a decent primer as a basis for the beginning of prep discussion.

No, of course not. They're a good list to develop your rules from, though. And to use to discuss the process with the client.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

See, that's where I depart from the book.

Do I want a witness to be wary of volunteering information? Sure. But I don't want the witness to come across as a prissy question troll either. I think that transcripts where the witness answers every question as narrowly as possible read defensive. There are worse mistakes to make, but I prefer to have my witnesses give each question thought and then answer as narrowly or broadly as appropriate.

Otherwise I get exchanges like this:

Q: This is an email you received from Bob Smith, is it not?

A: This is an email addressed to me.

Q: Well it's from Bob Smith isn't it?

A: I don't know.

Q: Who's name is on the From: line?

A: Bob Smith

Q: So isn't it fair to say that this email is from Bob Smith?

A: It appears to have been sent from his account, but I was not there when it was drafted, so I couldn't say.

I don't think that does the witness any favors.

 

[mr roboto]

I think I would love being deposed. I'm just enough of a literal ####### to do something like the above.

 

[-fish-]

My advice runs more along the lines of trying to help the witness remember that they are giving testimony and not engaging in conversation. One of the most helpful things to tell a witness is to repeat a question in his/her head before giving an answer. The slight pause helps them to break the conversational rhythm, allows time to object, and makes them think about answering the question that's being asked, instead of just filling in blanks and volunteering information.

I agree with scooby that you don't want your witness to look defensive and adversarial. I've found that especially with people with liberal arts backgrounds, though, you need to try to get them to not fill in blanks in the deposition. Some people are so uncomfortable with a silent pause while the opposing counsel is thinking about his next question that they start volunteering information that has anything to do with the previous question.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yeah, if I think a witness is getting conversational, that's when I try my hand at unconscionable speaking objections just to break the flow.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

See, that's where I depart from the book.

Do I want a witness to be wary of volunteering information? Sure. But I don't want the witness to come across as a prissy question troll either. I think that transcripts where the witness answers every question as narrowly as possible read defensive. There are worse mistakes to make, but I prefer to have my witnesses give each question thought and then answer as narrowly or broadly as appropriate.

Otherwise I get exchanges like this:

Q: This is an email you received from Bob Smith, is it not?

A: This is an email addressed to me.

Q: Well it's from Bob Smith isn't it?

A: I don't know.

Q: Who's name is on the From: line?

A: Bob Smith

Q: So isn't it fair to say that this email is from Bob Smith?

A: It appears to have been sent from his account, but I was not there when it was drafted, so I couldn't say.

I don't think that does the witness any favors.

I've used the "Do you know what time it is?" example many times to illustrate the concept to clients, but I agree that you don't want to put them in a "what's a copy machine?" situation. I've been in situations many times where I was hoping my client would give more of an explanation to a question to really hit home on an important point, but he remained tight-lipped, following the rules I gave him. But its really hard to train a non-lawyer (read: normal person) to know when to follow "the rules" and when its better to stray. And of course its all situation-specific. In most cases, I think the risk of appearing non-cooperative or evasive is preferable to a client who sings like a bird.

 

[-fish-]

Yeah, if I think a witness is getting conversational, that's when I try my hand at unconscionable speaking objections just to break the flow.

that's when I kick them in the shin, which is also part of my pre-deposition instruction.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Some people are so uncomfortable with a silent pause while the opposing counsel is thinking about his next question that they start volunteering information that has anything to do with the previous question.

In many instances the silent pause is an intentional tactic, as the lawyer knows most witnesses have an irresistible urge to fill the void. Sometimes a witness will give a perfect answer and stop, but a 5 second blank stare from the lawyer will induce the witness to go off on a charitable soliloquy.

 

[Henry Ford]

Some people are so uncomfortable with a silent pause while the opposing counsel is thinking about his next question that they start volunteering information that has anything to do with the previous question.

In many instances the silent pause is an intentional tactic, as the lawyer knows most witnesses have an irresistible urge to fill the void. Sometimes a witness will give a perfect answer and stop, but a 5 second blank stare from the lawyer will induce the witness to go off on a charitable soliloquy.

I do this constantly in questioning a witness.

 

[Henry Ford]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

See, that's where I depart from the book.

Do I want a witness to be wary of volunteering information? Sure. But I don't want the witness to come across as a prissy question troll either. I think that transcripts where the witness answers every question as narrowly as possible read defensive. There are worse mistakes to make, but I prefer to have my witnesses give each question thought and then answer as narrowly or broadly as appropriate.

Otherwise I get exchanges like this:

Q: This is an email you received from Bob Smith, is it not?

A: This is an email addressed to me.

Q: Well it's from Bob Smith isn't it?

A: I don't know.

Q: Who's name is on the From: line?

A: Bob Smith

Q: So isn't it fair to say that this email is from Bob Smith?

A: It appears to have been sent from his account, but I was not there when it was drafted, so I couldn't say.

I don't think that does the witness any favors.

Of course, but if they're going to err it should be on the side of under sharing usually.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

See, that's where I depart from the book.

Do I want a witness to be wary of volunteering information? Sure. But I don't want the witness to come across as a prissy question troll either. I think that transcripts where the witness answers every question as narrowly as possible read defensive. There are worse mistakes to make, but I prefer to have my witnesses give each question thought and then answer as narrowly or broadly as appropriate.

Otherwise I get exchanges like this:

Q: This is an email you received from Bob Smith, is it not?

A: This is an email addressed to me.

Q: Well it's from Bob Smith isn't it?

A: I don't know.

Q: Who's name is on the From: line?

A: Bob Smith

Q: So isn't it fair to say that this email is from Bob Smith?

A: It appears to have been sent from his account, but I was not there when it was drafted, so I couldn't say.

I don't think that does the witness any favors.

I've used the "Do you know what time it is?" example many times to illustrate the concept to clients, but I agree that you don't want to put them in a "what's a copy machine?" situation. I've been in situations many times where I was hoping my client would give more of an explanation to a question to really hit home on an important point, but he remained tight-lipped, following the rules I gave him. But its really hard to train a non-lawyer (read: normal person) to know when to follow "the rules" and when its better to stray. And of course its all situation-specific. In most cases, I think the risk of appearing non-cooperative or evasive is preferable to a client who sings like a bird.

I think that's why the prep session is so important. I can't prepare the witness for every avenue of questioning. But I can get the broad narrative and I can tell the witness where his or her narrative is good for us. There are areas where I want an affirmative story to be told.

For instance, I was in trade secret case in Taiwan (it was an ITC case). I knew my witness had a bunch of documents stamped with the other side's Proprietary Material disclaimer. I knew he'd face a bunch of questions like "Can you tell me how this confidential COMPANY X document came to be on your computer?" I didn't want him to answer that question for each document by saying "I don't recall how I received this particular document." Even if that was true, it was useless to us. The witness told me that "proprietary" data sheets were routinely shared with clients who also routinely shared those sheets with competitors to try to elicit comps. So in that case, I wanted the witness to speculate (but to be clear that he was speculating).

 

[-fish-]

I hate voicemail.

 

[Zow]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

See, that's where I depart from the book.

Do I want a witness to be wary of volunteering information? Sure. But I don't want the witness to come across as a prissy question troll either. I think that transcripts where the witness answers every question as narrowly as possible read defensive. There are worse mistakes to make, but I prefer to have my witnesses give each question thought and then answer as narrowly or broadly as appropriate.

Otherwise I get exchanges like this:

Q: This is an email you received from Bob Smith, is it not?

A: This is an email addressed to me.

Q: Well it's from Bob Smith isn't it?

A: I don't know.

Q: Who's name is on the From: line?

A: Bob Smith

Q: So isn't it fair to say that this email is from Bob Smith?

A: It appears to have been sent from his account, but I was not there when it was drafted, so I couldn't say.

I don't think that does the witness any favors.

#### like this makes me hate my job.

 

[Christo]

Some people are so uncomfortable with a silent pause while the opposing counsel is thinking about his next question that they start volunteering information that has anything to do with the previous question.

In many instances the silent pause is an intentional tactic, as the lawyer knows most witnesses have an irresistible urge to fill the void. Sometimes a witness will give a perfect answer and stop, but a 5 second blank stare from the lawyer will induce the witness to go off on a charitable soliloquy.

I do this constantly in questioning a witness.

Hell, I go one step further. If they stop and I pause and they don't start talking again I tell them it looks like they want to add something to their answer.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Quick question for the lawyers in here. Driving to work yesterday was behind a big old truck. I'm guessing it hauls gravel or something. They had a sign on the back of the truck that said something like "Warning: Stay back 200 feet. We are not responsible for broken windshields." I'm guessing they can't avoid liability for damage done by things flying out of their truck by simply posting a sign on their truck. Yes/No?

The primary purpose of that sign is to be able to say you were aware of the risk of driving closely to that vehicle, which becomes a factor that can reduce your damage claim, if the damage is from something that fell out of the truck.

I think the primary purpose is to get people not to sue them in the first place. Some people just believe whatever they read.

I believe that in many states the lobby for truckers has actually gotten statutes passed to the effect that they are protected from liability for such damages unless you can affirmatively show they were somehow negligent in loading or securing the load and the fact that some gravel falls off of, or out of a truck is not prima facie evidence of negligence if they have secured the load to industry standards and have not overloaded the vehicle. I do not know why this is my recollection, it just is. Note - Not my area of law.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

RHE I get your point. But in my experience we all expect people to not listen to their attorney and talk too much. So if I can get my client to answer yes no to a yes no question it throws the rhythm of opposing counsel.

I've only had one client listen 100% and it was hysterical. The other attorney didn't know what to do. He wasn't a litigator primarily but he wasn't a novice. He just expected it to go like any other deposition.

But I've had clients try to do the smart ### answer route as well. It does suck and I've yelled at them when I had to.

My basic instructions are this. The clock example and what a yes no question is. Always tell the truth no matter what. I don't care of you think it makes you look bad because it's going to come out anyway and you will look worse. And my final prep instruction is always the same... yiu aren't going to outsmart the lawyer do don't try to with your answers. This isn't television and you are on our turf. I will object when I have to and do my job. If you can't trust me to do my job fire me now or do what I tell you.

And whatever you do don't fill the silent space. God I hate when my clients do that.

 

[Henry Ford]

I also tell the client I would rather that opposing counsel think he is stupid and not know what's going on than brilliant. So stop trying to convince opposing counsel of how smart and insightful you are and just answer the questions.

 

[Otis]

Some people are so uncomfortable with a silent pause while the opposing counsel is thinking about his next question that they start volunteering information that has anything to do with the previous question.

In many instances the silent pause is an intentional tactic, as the lawyer knows most witnesses have an irresistible urge to fill the void. Sometimes a witness will give a perfect answer and stop, but a 5 second blank stare from the lawyer will induce the witness to go off on a charitable soliloquy.

This. It's human nature.

 

[Otis]

Some people are so uncomfortable with a silent pause while the opposing counsel is thinking about his next question that they start volunteering information that has anything to do with the previous question.

In many instances the silent pause is an intentional tactic, as the lawyer knows most witnesses have an irresistible urge to fill the void. Sometimes a witness will give a perfect answer and stop, but a 5 second blank stare from the lawyer will induce the witness to go off on a charitable soliloquy.

I do this constantly in questioning a witness.

Hell, I go one step further. If they stop and I pause and they don't start talking again I tell them it looks like they want to add something to their answer.

Agree on both

 

[Otis]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things. Most mistakes by deponents involve some form of talking too much, saying too much, anticipating a question that wasn't asked. As arrogant as I am, it was very hard in my deposition not to explain things that I wanted to explain. That's what most witnesses get wrong.

"Do you know what time it is?" is a yes or no question.

Exactly. I beat that into them. Verbatim.

See, that's where I depart from the book.

Do I want a witness to be wary of volunteering information? Sure. But I don't want the witness to come across as a prissy question troll either. I think that transcripts where the witness answers every question as narrowly as possible read defensive. There are worse mistakes to make, but I prefer to have my witnesses give each question thought and then answer as narrowly or broadly as appropriate.

Otherwise I get exchanges like this:

Q: This is an email you received from Bob Smith, is it not?

A: This is an email addressed to me.

Q: Well it's from Bob Smith isn't it?

A: I don't know.

Q: Who's name is on the From: line?

A: Bob Smith

Q: So isn't it fair to say that this email is from Bob Smith?

A: It appears to have been sent from his account, but I was not there when it was drafted, so I couldn't say.

I don't think that does the witness any favors.

I've used the "Do you know what time it is?" example many times to illustrate the concept to clients, but I agree that you don't want to put them in a "what's a copy machine?" situation. I've been in situations many times where I was hoping my client would give more of an explanation to a question to really hit home on an important point, but he remained tight-lipped, following the rules I gave him. But its really hard to train a non-lawyer (read: normal person) to know when to follow "the rules" and when its better to stray. And of course its all situation-specific. In most cases, I think the risk of appearing non-cooperative or evasive is preferable to a client who sings like a bird.

This. It's not the time to win the case; you're playing defense. Some seem to really get it when explained that way.

 

[Otis]

So I'm going to be deposed next week, my second time in the hot seat since moving in house, after having taken/defended a hundred or so during my time in private practice. This time we're only a non-party witness, but the party taking it has made some rather nasty allegations about us so it could get interesting. The first time I was deposed we were a party to the lawsuit, which was a 7 figure dispute between my company and a law firm of which a prominent poster here is a member. That was contentious, exhausting and got a bit heated in spots. Reading the transcript after was at times funny, at times painful, as I managed to break most of the rules and guidelines I'd given my clients over the years.

As a guy who doesn't do many depositions, what are your rules and guidelines for clients being deposed? I have my first client being subjected to an actual deposition in a month.

I think it differs a fair bit depending on expert, party or non-party witnesses, but the main things all lawyers tell their clients are to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, don't speculate or try to anticipate where the questioning is leading, don't answer the unasked question and don't lie. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't remember". Don't feel a need to fill quiet space. There are lots of other things to go over, but these are the main things.

All this. These are the standards.

 

[DocGonzo]

At the risk of stating the obvious: one thing I always do before a dep is play opposing counsel with my client. I sit them down in the conference room and I absolutely grill them. It often helps me see where they might be likely to go off on a freestyle tangent and where they're solid. It gives them a sense of "been there done that" when they sit for the real dep and I think that helps them be comfortable and give the best dep they can.

Dep prep can be huge. It's a great feeling when opposing counsel finishes your client's dep and says to you "he's gonna be a good witness."

 

[Zow]

Thanks for all the deposition tips.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I just got a denial letter for a Social Security disability application that I am doing for a client who is also a friend who is also a fricken hero whose life is a miracle at this point given what the medical procedures were who might just be the most slam dunk of course this person is disabled kinda applicant that the world has ever seen. I am so livid right now I can't express it in words.

 

[NCCommish]

I just got a denial letter for a Social Security disability application that I am doing for a client who is also a friend who is also a fricken hero whose life is a miracle at this point given what the medical procedures were who might just be the most slam dunk of course this person is disabled kinda applicant that the world has ever seen. I am so livid right now I can't express it in words.

Apparently. That run on sentence looks like something I might write.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

A laugher for you guys for the weekend. In the "my life isn't that bad thank GOD," style of story telling...

Post divorce motion hearing. Mom has the kids because dad had some problems. Let's call those problems, heroin and vodka. They are cruel mistresses (not in the AZRon way - that's a whole other level of crazy). Dad however did have visitation with kids. Dad wants more. He is cleaning up his life and wants more time with his kids. Couple goes to mediation and they work out a visitation schedule. Almost immediately dad does not comply with it. Shows up late - misses dates, doesn't do anything with the kids when he has them. You know, a general mess.

Anyhoo - mom finally has enough of the various problems with visitation and files a motion to change it for good because he is a mess. He objects.

In his arguments when he gets to why he missed one particular visitation period recently his excuse ( and he seemingly said this because he was actually looking for sympathy from the court) was as follows - roughly verbatim:

"I missed the visitation scheduled on X date and didn't get to make a call to give a heads up on it because I was in a car accident that wasn't my fault. I was driving and my breathalyzer fell and I had to reach down to grab it because I was worried that my car would turn off and when I reached down to pick it up I hit the car in front of me."

Friends, let me give you a small piece of advice in a couple parts:

1. If the lawyers sitting in the chairs behind you are holding back laughter so much that they are turing blue, chances are you probably just did or said something really (and I mean, really) funny. And it doesn't happen that often.

2. We aren't allowed to behave in a courtroom like that so again, whatever you said had to be so absolutely hysterical that the rules of professional courtesy and ethics are waived for a brief period to catch ones breath.

3. Finally, if you are arguing that you in fact are clean and sobar and can take care of your kids - telling the judge that your breathalyzer in your car caused you to have an accident is quite possibly the dumbest thing you could say.

I swear I'm going to remember this one until the day I die. If a courtroom had a laughtrack it would have broken.

 

[Henry Ford]

I just got a denial letter for a Social Security disability application that I am doing for a client who is also a friend who is also a fricken hero whose life is a miracle at this point given what the medical procedures were who might just be the most slam dunk of course this person is disabled kinda applicant that the world has ever seen. I am so livid right now I can't express it in words.

Sorry, man. That sucks.

You know the SS mantra..

Don't stop! Appealing! oooooh!

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm actually drafting a lawsuit on behalf of a charity I do pro bono work for. National, huge, very recognizable charity. Someone pledged money in exchange for using their logo and name on advertising, sold the items in question, and then just didn't give the charity its cut.

WTF?

 

[NCCommish]

I'm actually drafting a lawsuit on behalf of a charity I do pro bono work for. National, huge, very recognizable charity. Someone pledged money in exchange for using their logo and name on advertising, sold the items in question, and then just didn't give the charity its cut.

WTF?

Some folks ain't too bright.

 

[Thorn]

Have a multi-party case that settled after a year and a half. Actually it "settled" in February, but we have been working on the language of the settlement agreement since then.

We even had a conference with the judge about the status of the settlement agreement.

So we finally finalized the most final of versions Wednesday and circulated for signatures, including some really big corporations that have to send these things like three levels up the chain of command. The last entity to sign realized yours truly actually sent out one of the earlier versions.

So yea, I look like a #######ned fool. Is it the weekend yet?

 

[Zow]

Have a multi-party case that settled after a year and a half. Actually it "settled" in February, but we have been working on the language of the settlement agreement since then.

We even had a conference with the judge about the status of the settlement agreement.

So we finally finalized the most final of versions Wednesday and circulated for signatures, including some really big corporations that have to send these things like three levels up the chain of command. The last entity to sign realized yours truly actually sent out one of the earlier versions.

So yea, I look like a #######ned fool. Is it the weekend yet?

 

[Zow]

I just had a lawyer call me up, tell me I'm being too harsh in my communications and pleadings in a Dependency case with pro se petitioners, and to tone down how much I'm fighting for my client because it is unfair that the petitioners don't have a lawyer. Bear in mind, this is a private dependency case started by the petitioners whereby they're asking the judge to keep my client from his kid and, after a hearing where I was finally able to get the judge to lay out a visitation plan and admonish the Petitioners for limiting my client's contact with the kid, just a week later they send out a mass e-mail letting everyone know that the visitation plan interferes with their "family time" with the kid (note: petitioners are not the parents) and that, instead, they're going to implement their own plan with substantially less visitation.

I should also note this case includes the following:

- a lesbian love triangle

- while not confirmed, a very likely ploy to trick someone into being a sperm donor

- a daughter marrying her stepfather

- a myriad of legal issues spanning against three distinct areas of law

- kids with mullets